Hacker News Reader

Comment by inostia | Hacker News Reader

How did I not see this before the election (even if it came out 102316 as evidenced in the file name)? Why did NYT/Guardian/all of the news sites that I regularly visit not report this?

This is a clear policy proposal, contrary to everything I had read that said he had no clear plan.

View on HN

I agree that there was noise regarding Trump not having a clear plan. That said,

- Did you check out either candidate's websites?

- Were you aware of Hillary's equivalent?[0] Was this reported in the news sites you frequent?

[0]: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

I'm asking the questions honestly. I did know of Trump's contract (though I don't remember how I came across it), and didn't look at the Clinton campaign site. I don't recall anything in the news about either.

I did look at both candidate's websites. Though a link to this .pdf was not easy to find. This is exactly the sort of thing that I expect the media to link me to, rather than an (after-the-fact) HN post.

I read news websites every single day and never saw anything close to the clarity of his positions presented here.

To be fair, is it the media's responsibility to make sure an important policy document is easy to find? What does it say about the Trump campaign that the document was hard to find on their own campaign website?

That's fair. But it does seem like there's some suppression here. I always thought the "mainstream media bias" thing was just a soundbite for conservatives. But tarrifs for companies wanting to move factories overseas? Term limits for Congress people? Those are legitimate proposals that I never heard about (except in the debates).

I don't have time to look for documents on candidates websites. I rely on (and pay) the media to present information because I'm busy. This should have been reported fairly, though maybe that bias is actually true.

Specifically, what policies of Clinton's did you hear the media report on? All that comes to mind to me is the drivel on both sides regarding rumors and supposed scandal. Not much policy analysis at all. (Then again I'm pretty exhausted after this campaign season, so my memory may not be what it should.)

I do remember reports from within the Trump campaign that they had a difficult time keeping him on message. One of the benefits of message discipline is that it limits the opportunities for the media to report on things other than what you think is important for your campaign.

I think the media in general has fallen down on the job (which I have my own reasons for that I'm not going to bring up here), but I think a lot of that has been due to what they find gets people to view their ads as subscription numbers have fallen and they've needed to rely on online ad revenue. This is a serious problem. We've gotten to the point where we no longer have a generally accepted shared source of trust. If Trump were hammering home his Contract with the American Voter, I think you would have heard about it, regardless of media bias.

I do think relying on the media in this day and age (and thank you for paying for it, as do I) to present the information you require is a little bit foolish. If you find it's lacking something you need, unfortunately I think we need to dig for ourselves.

If you've got ideas on how to figure out how we can once again get to some shared, trusted sources, I'm all ears :)

The media is just soundbites. That's all.

It's not supposed to be informative, it's clickbait. It's entertainment. It's drivel.

NYT, for one, often reiterated that Trump has no policy proposals despite many of these (e.g. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies) being out for awhile.

Bookmark some more news sites so you get a wider spectrum. Smaller independent operations (ex: Breitbart, Drudge Report) are less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated.

Also, r/The_Donald is has been an excellent aggregate for all things related to the campaign.

Also, see Wikileaks to get an idea of how bad the bias/corruption has been in the media (ex: CNN giving HRC questions in advance of debates [0], CNN asking HRC campaign for input regarding questions for Donald in exclusive interview [1]); this should help you understand the scope of the situation and why you haven't been getting good reporting from mainstream news.

[0] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786225211481792514

[1] https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846

The absence of leaks from the RNC doesn't mean that the RNC doesn't do the same things as the DNC.

Sure but given there's no proof, this argument doesn't hold much water; these leaks not to mention other damning revelations that showed an offensive targeted smear/deception/disruption campaign against Trump is rather extreme and unlikely matched in it's criminality let alone the weight of the evidence itself. For example, there is video evidence [0] of DNC operatives taking claim for causing violence at Trump rallies. Was there even any violence that happened at Clinton campaigns? And do you really think the RNC would have gone that far in their so called 'support' of Trump which saw record-low investment in advertising and endorsements from fellow Republicans? Do you really think Wolf Blitzer got any questions from the RNC or Trump Campaign in advance of town hall debates or interviews with Hillary Clinton?

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

You cite Breitbart as an example of a website that is "less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated."

How is that even remotely accurate, considering the Chairman of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is Trump's campaign chairman?

Fair point, thank-you. That taken into consideration, would you say there is no harm in at least adding Breitbart to the basket of news media sources? Which could also include CNN, who's anchors also could all very well have been candidates for chairman of Clinton's campaign.

I agree with you that much of the mainstream media showed a bias against Trump through this election. (I feel they had very good reasons to be biased against him, but regardless, should have done a better job of keeping the reporting neutral.) That said, Breitbart and Drudge Report are probably the two most well known right-biased sources in existence (aside from the obviously much larger, but less biased, Fox News). Describing them as not politically motivated seems misleading at best.

Thanks for your insights. It seems where we disagree is on your point of Breitbart and Drudge being 'right-biased'. To me they come across as simply more dedicated to reporting the truth and principled in their commitment to reporting said truth regardless of implications or contradictions to the status quo who are often downright misleading and deceitful; this most recent election campaign serving as a magnification of that.

Thank you for your reasonable reply. As I see it, there are a few ways bias can manifest. The most obvious is in reporting things that aren't true. One step down from that is reporting things that are technically true, but in a misleading way. (You definitely saw a lot of anti-Trump bias manifest in that way.) The next level from there is choosing which truths to report, in order to paint a picture. That's the level that I personally have seen most often on Breitbart/Drudge. You may well be right that they dig up uncomfortable truths that are ignored by other sources. But how often does one of those uncomfortable truths lean toward painting liberals in a better light than conservatives? It's like when negative results of scientific studies are thrown out; we can end up seeing a pattern in the resulting aggregate data that doesn't really exist.

Then you also have to look at the tone in which things are presented. For example, at the top of Breitbart right now: "At Last: The Lena Dunham Meltdown You’ve Been Waiting For ‘I ached in the places that make me a woman’" There may not be anything factually inaccurate in that article, although I haven't checked all the quotations myself. But it seems pretty clear that this is a pretty shameless gloat. I mean, they acknowledge it as such in the headline. I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with looking at varied sources, if you do so critically. I would suggest looking at an article in Breitbart, then finding reporting on the same thing from a more mainstream (call it left-leaning if you want) outlet - say the Washington Post or the NY Times. Compare the statements of fact, sure, but mostly compare the tone of the articles and ask yourself what picture they're trying to paint. Obviously what comes off as neutral and what biased would depend on where you yourself sit on the spectrum, but regardless I think it's a valuable exercise.

To take it further, where the two sources differ significantly, check facts. And it doesn't mean just find a source to corroborate them, as there will always be an echo chamber of sources repeating the same things on both sides. Instead you need to dig a bit deeper.

The easiest example is a quote. It's amazing how often people are misquoted, or the quotation is interpreted differently than I would view it. Very often these days you can find video of the original quote, and interpret it for yourself.

Now, the veracity of a statement is a bit more difficult than just whether or not someone said something. Often you can start by checking wikipedia, then look to the sources it references, for a good start.

Described very well - and I like the analogy. And great tips.

Also, as you elude to, consider what is not being reported.

I would add, look for neutral sources too. Wikileaks for example.

At the end of the day, we should hopefully arrive at an accurate picture of the reality of a given situation. Ie: to figure out what the hell is going on. To call a spade a spade.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com